Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1194 - ITAT DELHIReopening of assessment - unexplained source of investment of assessee's half share in the impugned two properties - mistake by mentioning assessment year 2010-11 instead of 2009-10 - HELD THAT:- Notices u/s. 142(1) and notice u/s. 271(1)(b) were also issued to the assessee by mentioning the assessment year correctly. Typographical mistake in mentioning the assessment year was occurred for the first time in passing order u/s. 271(1)(b) on 26.7.2016 and notice was issued u/s. 156 for demand of ₹ 10,000/- continued the mistake by mentioning assessment year 2010-11 instead of 2009-10 and same mistake continued in further correspondences till passing the assessment order on 31.10.2016 and issuing the demand notice u/s. 156; penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c). Such mistake in mentioning the assessment year wrongly in subsequent correspondences are nothing but mistake apparent from record with was recognized later and rectified by the AO by passing a valid order u/s. 154 of the Act on 13.01.2017. The argument of the assessee on this account fails and therefore, it was rightly held that the assessment order dated 31.10.2016 is a valid order, which does not need any interference on my part, hence, uphold the action of the CIT(A) on the issue of dispute and reject the grounds raised by the assessee. Assessee did not file any evidence in support to explain the source of investment of his half share in the impugned two properties. The assessee had not brought any evidence on record to explain such investment, the action of the AO to treat the unexplained investment made by the appellant is considered to be appropriate. It is gathered from the purchase deed of these two properties that the actual sale consideration was paid for these properties were ₹ 20,00,000/- and ₹ 10,00,000/- respectively. The value taken by the AO in assessment order as purchase consideration (unexplained investment) has been the value mentioned in the purchase deeds for the purpose of stamp duty. Such stamp duty value is for the purpose of application of provision of section 50C of the Act to compute the capital gain in the hand of the seller. The unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act will be the actual amount paid by the assessee. In view of the same, 50% of the total consideration of ₹ 20,00,000/- and ₹ 10,00,000/- i.e ₹ 15,00,000/- and stamp duty of ₹ 4,32,300/ (Rs. 3,67,900/- and ₹ 1,64,900/- paid over such purchase amount, totaling to ₹ 19,32,300/, should be considered as unexplained investment in the hand of the assessee u/s 69. I note that the case law cited by the AR is distinguished on facts of the present case. Hence, the assessee gets relief of ₹ 33,85,200/- and the remaining addition of ₹ 19,32,300/- was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, therefore, uphold the action of the CIT(A) on the merits - decided against assessee.
|